Thirty years is a long time. Thirty years ago, the tragedy of September 11 hadn’t happened, Y2K was still a distant concern, and “Macarena” was topping the charts. What will the world be like in another 30 years?

That’s a critical point to be considered at Tuesday’s meeting of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors — potentially one of the most consequential meetings in our county’s history. At that meeting, Supervisors will be asked to place a terribly flawed and ridiculously long 30-year, $7.3 billion Measure C renewal effort on the ballot.

When the original Measure C was passed in 1986 it was in response to a state government that was leaving Fresno County behind when it came to road dollars. It was much needed and led to the building and extending of Highways 168 and 180, widening of Friant Road and Willow Avenue, and completing Veterans Boulevard, among many other projects. The original measure also offered the ability to leverage “matching funds” that vastly increased the number and scope of projects while reducing the burden on our county’s taxpayers.

In the 40 years since Measure C was first enacted, the types of reasonable voices who crafted it have been squeezed out as weak politicians increasingly bow to social justice activists. While promising “better roads” and “safe streets,” this current renewal effort actually reads more like a progressive wish list of road “diets” (decreased driving lanes) that creates more congestion, 120 miles of new bike lanes that destroy roadways and frustrate drivers, and spends nearly one in every five dollars being paid by residents of the entire county on Fresno’s city buses, and more.

What’s more, all this spending comes with the goal of getting you out of your car and on to a bus, bike, or scooter. If you want to see what this new measure would do to roadways, just take a trip down to the Tower District to witness firsthand what a mess these ideas have made of streets there. In fact, even though they are desperately needed, this renewal effort prohibits the construction of any new road lanes — unless they are for bikes or buses. This initiative also does away with the requirement to utilize “matching funds” and relies solely on Fresno County taxpayers to fund it all.

Transportation Experts Oppose ‘Better Roads Safe Streets’ Plan

The opinions coming out of the county have been pointed to say the least. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Garry Bredefeld called the renewal plan, “…a THIRTY-YEAR transportation tax scam that will not fix roads as promised but attempt to force people to ride public transportation rather than use their cars.”

Supervisor Buddy Mendes referred to it as the “con-job initiative.” Mohammad Alimi, a highly respected, 24-year veteran of the county’s Public Works and Planning Department, described language in the measure as “absurd,” “makes no sense,” and “not fair” while making it it clear that “we strongly oppose.”

One of the major proponents of this measure is my Clovis City Council colleague Vong Mouanoutoua, who reduced legitimate concerns such as these to nothing more than “rhetoric and noise.” Others making “noise” against this measure include the actual transportation experts who have been deeply involved with Measure C for decades. They include former Fresno Council of Governments Executive Director Tony Boren and former Fresno County Transportation Authority Executive Director Mike Leonardo, Michael Der Manouel Jr. and Brooke Ashjian of the Lincoln Club, former Fresno County Supervisor Henry Perea, and commonsense mayors in Kingsburg, Reedley, Sanger, and Selma, among many others.

How Measure C Veered Off the Tracks

We should also acknowledge the deep distrust the public is right to feel with this measure due to the corrupted renewal process. It began like the previous efforts with the Fresno Council of Governments — Fresno COG, which is made up of the 15 mayors of the county’s cities and one representative from the County Board of Supervisors — appointing individuals representing their cities and a handful of community members representing connected organizations and industries to a steering committee.

Their charge was to conduct community outreach and then craft a proposal of allocations and implementation guidelines for a Measure C extension. Things went sideways when 11 of the mayors (with opposition from Kingsburg, Reedley, Sanger, Selma, and the county) allowed a coalition of social justice groups to bully their way onto the steering committee by threatening to run their own competing citizens’ measure. Instead of sticking with the trusted process and supporting their chosen steering committee, Fresno COG bowed to the radicals, essentially giving them controlling interest on the committee over the cities’ representatives.

Additionally, the “Better Roads, Safe Streets” group doubles-down on a failed idea from the 2006 renewal effort — the “if we fund it, they will ride” concept for the county’s bus systems — and increases the allocations of our tax dollars on public transit to 25% of the measure’s allocations. Another concern is Sacramento’s insistence that cities move to budget-busting electrification of buses (making cities pay not only for new electric buses but charging infrastructure as well), may change the viability equation for public transit entirely.

No One Knows What Transportation Will Look Like in 30 Years

How can we possibly predict — and allocate tax dollars for — a transportation future that is nothing more than guesswork at this point? We have no idea what transit will even look like in 30 years – the length of this proposal alone should make this whole ill-advised effort a non-starter.

When this proposal could not get the support of the Board of Supervisors for placement on the November ballot, its backers pulled out and ran with the citizen’s initiative they had originally threatened. Of course, now they had the benefit of nearly $100,000 of county taxpayer money that funded the work of the steering committee and, having gotten inside, they had tanked what would have been the competing Measure C renewal from the trusted Fresno COG process.

Don’t Fall for This ‘Scam’

That brings us back to this Tuesday’s meeting. Thirty years’ worth of unknown implications should not be rushed onto the ballot. The proposal at the end of the steering committee’s work before it was abandoned had already drawn the ire and criticism from county departments for its negative impact. The “Better Roads, Safe Streets” backers want our Fresno County Board of Supervisors to not do their due diligence and allow the county staff to examine and assess this specific measure’s impact on the county departments and residents.

There is no doubt we have roads in desperate need of repair. But we can’t afford to fall for the scam of “Better Roads, Safe Streets” and find out too late it doesn’t deliver on its promises. I disagree with those who say, “something is better than nothing.” Fresno County is far better off taking a breather from this whole debacle than locking ourselves into a 30-year bad deal.

The sky won’t fall in the next two years, and maybe some much needed commonsense will prevail in the interim.

About the Author

Diane Pearce has served on the Clovis City Council since winning election in December 2022. She is currently the city’s mayor pro-tem.

Make Your Voice Heard

GV Wire encourages vigorous debate from people and organizations on local, state, national, and international issues. Submit your op-ed or letter to bmcewen@gvwire.com for consideration.